Americans No Longer the Fattest

U.N. data indicate that Mexicans are now the fattest inhabitants of a developed nation with about a 33% rate of obesity. (Yeah, yeah, the skinnier Mexicans are all gone because they were faster and made it across the border). Americans are second with a 32% rate. Very close behind Americans are Syrians, dispelling the notion "fat and happy."

...and though I don't deny the huge (avoidable) cost of obesity in our healthcare system, I'm very much swayed that obesity is only part of the story. The more compelling story in terms of health is the fact that we have grown quite sedentary. This video explains:

Should get more people to play tennis, rarely do I see an obese person playing tennis

Click to expand...

True obese people don't play tennis. But thats not because of the tennis - the fat people don't choose to play tennis in the first place. We don't tell short people to grow taller by playing basketball.

It's the same with long distance running. Long distance runners are think with good endurance. But that's why they pick the sport in the first place..

True obese people don't play tennis. But thats not because of the tennis - the fat people don't choose to play tennis in the first place. We don't tell short people to grow taller by playing basketball.

It's the same with long distance running. Long distance runners are think with good endurance. But that's why they pick the sport in the first place..

I also know quite a few very heavy people who play tennis. I also know quite a few 'older' people (60+? I don't ask their age) who play.

These players are often pretty darn good players, especially in doubles.

Even in singles, you don't need to cover a huge amount of ground. Along with a bit of anticipation, a few steps in the right direction, add the extension of your arm, plus the extension of the racket, and people in the aforementioned groups can compete effectively up to about say, the 4.0 level.

I know quite a few older people who still play basketball as well. These guys are surprisingly competitive: if they've got a quick release on their shot, and are willing to pass the ball (you can pass faster than your opponent can run), they can compete with a lot of the younger guys.

I am constantly surprised at how often skill and experience bests youth and athleticism. (Up to a certain point, that is).

That said, it is clearly easier to drink 4 cans of soda per day (600 extra calories) than it is to eat 600 extra calories in vegetables or even meat. These consistent extra calories will lead to weight gain, which is a primary risk factor for Type-2 diabetes.

We are also less active. This is also a leading risk factor (according to many, but I know Guy won't agree with this).

^^ no, but Indians do have the fastest increase in rate of diabetes in the world, moreso than Americans. Carbs and sugar are a large part of the diet there now.

Click to expand...

They were always a large part of the diet, but the poorer people could not afford to eat too much and also had to do a lot of menial labor. Sweets for example are almost like food, and so are fried snacks. For a long time, among the wealthier people, having a tummy and walking around leisurely was never considered bad, and actually was part of the image. Even if families were eating out before, they traveled in public buses or walked and lived without a/c, so the calories were sweated out pretty fast by the time they settled in back at home. Today, a/c is a must and cars are affordable, so you go, eat , and come back in comfort without expending calories.

The obesity among children is rising rapidly. As more people have disposable money or at least a changed mindset that money is for enjoying and not hoarding away like your poor grandma, they are eating out frequently or ordering pizza for delivery. KFC and MacDonalds at the malls are so popular that it is difficult to find a place to sit. The KFC recipe used in India was designed in their top-secret Hong Kong research kitchen, and is far better than the American variety. There are numerous competitors to KFC also among local companies.

Another factor is that young folks are hanging out more and more in cafes and malls where there is security and girls are safe. They don't mind spending more money for a decent place rather than hanging out at a roadside place where the food is cheaper but there are constant unwanted glances at the women. Hygiene is also becoming a priority so paying more for food which is guaranteed to be clean is OK now. But if you hang out in malls, what do you do? Eat a lot more.

We could Google and cherry pick articles that favor both sides of the argument.

Click to expand...

I really don't know anything about diabetes but have some interest since my Dad's entire family (all siblings were diabetic, somehow he escaped). Thus I am concerned for myself.

Second, I once did read an article about why in Asia (my part i suppose) diabetes is on the rise. It said that earlier people did not have much to eat and exercised (walked/worked) a lot. By earlier I think it meant in the last few hundred years at least. Now, recently, lifestyles have changed, people get to eat a lot more and most people are leading sedentary lives.

I think the article concluded that our bodies (in SE Asia) are not used to so much excess calories whereas in the West your bodies have been used to it.

I really don't know what is right or wrong. Fat or Sugar ? Or exercise ? I do want to get through life without daily injections, though.

I really don't know anything about diabetes but have some interest since my Dad's entire family (all siblings were diabetic, somehow he escaped). Thus I am concerned for myself.

Second, I once did read an article about why in Asia (my part i suppose) diabetes is on the rise. It said that earlier people did not have much to eat and exercised (walked/worked) a lot. By earlier I think it meant in the last few hundred years at least. Now, recently, lifestyles have changed, people get to eat a lot more and most people are leading sedentary lives.

I think the article concluded that our bodies (in SE Asia) are not used to so much excess calories whereas in the West your bodies have been used to it.

I really don't know what is right or wrong. Fat or Sugar ? Or exercise ? I do want to get through life without daily injections, though.

Click to expand...

There is another theory floating around (some Indian doctors believe it, some don't) that frequent famines over many centuries in the subcontinent caused a mutation which causes the body to rapidly store carbohydrate as fat for emergency reasons, and that is why even the people who eat less and exercise carry a spare tire around the waist. The hypothetical gene is called the starvation gene.

People used to think that sugar was better then normal carbohydrates because it has a lower glycemic index but a diabetes researcher out of San Francisco has proven that your mother was probably right. Those sweets are not good for you. Although its lower glycemic sugar causes 'fatty liver' which seems to lead to both heart disease and diabetes.

Again this is not a settled question. There are medical professionals who used to buy into the Mayo Clinic's point of view. But they do not anymore.

Here is some of what Doctor Lustiq says about sugar..

"We asked the question, "What in the world's food supply explains diabetes rates, country-by-country, over the last decade?" We melded databases from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT), which measures food availability, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), which measures diabetes prevalence, the World Bank World Development Economic Indicators, and the World Health Organization Global Infobase. We assessed total calories; meat (protein); oils (fat); cereals (glucose); pulses, nuts, vegetables, roots, and tubers (fiber); fruit excluding wine (natural sugar); and sugar, sugarcrops, and sweeteners (added sugar). We controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, and most important, obesity and physical activity. "

So again you don't HAVE to believe me. I really don't care. But don't pretend that believing sugar and diabetes is linked is some crackpot theory. Both low carb and low sugar diets are gaining credence in the medical community as being responsible for these modern maladies. As I said - in agreement with others here - the principle factor is dietary changes. It's true that people might be exercising less. But call me crazy I think the average third worlder in India does a hell of a lot more physical labor then rich movie stars here - and they are heck of a lot fatter.

But don't pretend that believing sugar and diabetes is linked is some crackpot theory. Both low carb and low sugar diets are gaining credence in the medical community as being responsible for these modern maladies.

I need to proof read more. Should be that high sugar is being singled out for weight gain. Another 'bad' aspect in our diet that has been singled out is grains.

Americans are getting warmed up to the idea that you don't really need 11 servings of carbohydrates to function properly. I feel I get plenty of carbohydrates from vegetables, berries and the occasional tuber.

It all makes sense to me. Muffins and doughnuts have been thought for a very long time to be some of the worst foods for waist maintence. They combine alot of sugar and alot of carbohydrates in one food.

People used to think that sugar was better then normal carbohydrates because it has a lower glycemic index but a diabetes researcher out of San Francisco has proven that your mother was probably right. Those sweets are not good for you. Although its lower glycemic sugar causes 'fatty liver' which seems to lead to both heart disease and diabetes.

Again this is not a settled question. There are medical professionals who used to buy into the Mayo Clinic's point of view. But they do not anymore.

Here is some of what Doctor Lustiq says about sugar..

"We asked the question, "What in the world's food supply explains diabetes rates, country-by-country, over the last decade?" We melded databases from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT), which measures food availability, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), which measures diabetes prevalence, the World Bank World Development Economic Indicators, and the World Health Organization Global Infobase. We assessed total calories; meat (protein); oils (fat); cereals (glucose); pulses, nuts, vegetables, roots, and tubers (fiber); fruit excluding wine (natural sugar); and sugar, sugarcrops, and sweeteners (added sugar). We controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, and most important, obesity and physical activity. "

So again you don't HAVE to believe me. I really don't care. But don't pretend that believing sugar and diabetes is linked is some crackpot theory. Both low carb and low sugar diets are gaining credence in the medical community as being responsible for these modern maladies. As I said - in agreement with others here - the principle factor is dietary changes. It's true that people might be exercising less. But call me crazy I think the average third worlder in India does a hell of a lot more physical labor then rich movie stars here - and they are heck of a lot fatter.

I could go into why - but its kinda off topic. Diet is the key..

Click to expand...

guy

i am not in disagreement with you. I don't know what the truth is.
I don't know what you mean by "third worlder in India". Are you segregating people in one country into first-worlder and second etc. Are you referring only to the poor folk who don't have a car ?

Because let me tell you, once you have public and private transport, then there's really no physical labour unless you go out of your way to have a morning/evening walk, or gym (if you are wealthy). I speak of the cities and not the agricultural people or actual labourers.

In the cities, everyone starts getting a tummy once they are 25 or so. Even labourers start getting overweight if they jump up to a supervisory role.

There is another theory floating around (some Indian doctors believe it, some don't) that frequent famines over many centuries in the subcontinent caused a mutation which causes the body to rapidly store carbohydrate as fat for emergency reasons, and that is why even the people who eat less and exercise carry a spare tire around the waist. The hypothetical gene is called the starvation gene.

Click to expand...

I am not surprised to hear this. I have often wondered whether there is even a "fat storing mode" that the body goes into when people diet or go on "fasts".

Because let me tell you, once you have public and private transport, then there's really no physical labour unless you go out of your way to have a morning/evening walk, or gym (if you are wealthy). I speak of the cities and not the agricultural people or actual labourers.

Click to expand...

Ahh but even cities include lots of manual labor. You cannot eliminate them. Even in NYC - which employs things like dishwashers, pressure washers, etc etc. There are alot of guys that still have to do manual work. They have construction workers, movers, and all sorts of men doing the actual work of the city.

From what I understand India has EVEN MORE manual labor. i could be wrong. But they use still use manual labor to wash dishes, ride bikes and even shift gears in autos. So its not really ridiculous to think that overall they have higher levels of work then here.

Lustiq point is that exercise is not the problem. It's that people are eating the wrong foods. As he points out he adjusted for physical labor..

Now you can disagree with that - I am cool. I am just saying some Doctors think diet is the problem. Its not sloth but diet. This fits with my experience. I have met some fat construction workers. I personally think that on a daily basis they get alot more exercise they I do.

It all comes down to a positive energy balance. Period. Too much finger pointing at myths like "slow metabolism" (fat people have a faster metabolism), "bad genes" (genetic disorders account for less than 2% of cases), and other fairy tale stuff.

Could the obesity epidemic be the side effect of the success of the feminist movement?
The more moms joining the workforce, the less time they have to spend preparing meals for the families. The dads haven’t been able to adjust to make up the difference.

Coupling that with the fact junk foods are cheap, heavily promoted, readily available, and engineered to taste good while healthy foods are not promoted, time-consuming, and expensive, parents are facing a losing battle.

So again you don't HAVE to believe me. I really don't care. But don't pretend that believing sugar and diabetes is linked is some crackpot theory. Both low carb and low sugar diets are gaining credence in the medical community as being responsible for these modern maladies. As I said - in agreement with others here - the principle factor is dietary changes. It's true that people might be exercising less. But call me crazy I think the average third worlder in India does a hell of a lot more physical labor then rich movie stars here - and they are heck of a lot fatter.

I could go into why - but its kinda off topic. Diet is the key..

Click to expand...

Could you address a few things?

1) Are you keeping calorie consumption equal? Is the contention that we are continuing to eat the same number of calories, but we are just eating those calories as a higher percentage of sugar (or carbs in general)?

From what I've seen, we are actually consuming more calories each day (probably because of the high sugar / processed food consumption). And burning fewer calories (sendentary). But if this is true, how do we know if it is the increase in calories, the calorie source (more sugar), or fewer calories burned that is driving the higher instances of diabetes (and obesity)?

2) On the subject of exercise, the video below suggests that, holding all things equal, if we engage in "regular exercise" (as defined by the video; walking 30 minutes a day), we will lower our risk of developing certain diseases, including type-2 diabetes.

Could you show me the evidence that exercise doesn't lower diabetes risk ("Bottom line -- only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide; nothing else mattered"; as you say above......which is a pretty strong statement).